On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 06:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Locke wrote: > <snip> > > c) Whether PR are processed by RH employees/Rawhide maintainers or > others is irrelevant to users. The point that matters to users, is > seeing a "continuous flow" of their distro, and not having to intervene > into their system. > I guess the part that I don't get is when will it end? Today some are asking to extend it a few months to coincide with "n+2" release date. Then someone'll be asking that we get a little overlap to allow "n+2" to settle out before we upgrade, maybe until "n+3test2", then someone asks for a few months to "n+3" release. I just don't see it ending..... The objective of Core was to be upgrades from N to N+1 - though I'm more interested in re-spins to solve the installation problems not uncovered in "test phases".... :-) Given the objective of Core being rapid deployment, I'm not sure Fedora is appropriate for systems that don't need to be "intervened"..... > I.e. it all is a matter of organization, coordination and collaboration. > One way to achieve this would be RH to silently let the "legacy team" > take over maintenance, and continue to ship packages through Core. > I'm not sure I endorse "silence". Then we'll be accusing the project of "secrecy"... ;-) I believe the discussions in -devel are leaning more towards allowing a more transparent shift via yum to the Legacy repo's. I do agree with the need to make this "easier" for those that have not "upgraded" release. Leaving the packages in "Core" may just "confuse" things. > > But let's stop "demanding" and spend more effort "discussing" how we > > can move forward. > Well, this would require for the "RH-mountain" to move ;) > We'll have to wait and see if the Foundation represents a real shift or just a marketing event.... :-) --Rob
